Ok - it's good practice. But really, it's change for change sake, rather than
fixing any problem.
-- james s
Joe Eykholt wrote:
James Smart wrote:
NACK - the vports array is created such that it is sized for
phba->max_vports + 1.
It's not an off-by-one problem, it's a look-before-leaping problem.
Regards,
Joe
-- james s
Roel Kluin wrote:
Check whether index is within bounds before testing the element.
Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_vport.c
b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_vport.c
index e0b4992..ade2df6 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_vport.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_vport.c
@@ -762,7 +762,7 @@ lpfc_destroy_vport_work_array(struct lpfc_hba
*phba, struct lpfc_vport **vports)
int i;
if (vports == NULL)
return;
- for (i = 0; vports[i] != NULL && i <= phba->max_vports; i++)
+ for (i = 0; i <= phba->max_vports && vports[i] != NULL; i++)
scsi_host_put(lpfc_shost_from_vport(vports[i]));
kfree(vports);
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
